Is it because they're scared? If they rolled back civil rights because of a terrorist threat, do people actually think they won't do so in the name of ending "global warming" ? Why are people not okay with having terrorist phones tapped but okay with having the government decide what lightbulbs you MUST use or the type of water consuming toilet you MUST have in your house.
Neither one (phone tapping versus lightbulb laws) seems less of an intrusion that the other.
So whats the deal?
2007-03-03 06:26:09 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The government deciding what lightbulbs I use in my OWN HOUSE seems as great an invasion of privacy to me as anything else they could do.
Civil rights are eroded slowly so nobody notices, today its a lightbulb....what will it be tomorrow....
2007-03-03 06:35:55 · update #1
I'm amazed at the rights people are willing to give away to the government, its like they're not even thinking about it anymore. For some reason, they freely give them away because they're afraid of "global warming." It's all about fear.
2007-03-03 08:18:11 · update #2
You could equally say why are people prepared to accept limitations on their rights because of terrorism. When people are scared they will do ANYTHING. Hitler convinced perfectly rational people that Jews were to blame for everything wrong in Germany - and they believed him because they were scared for the future.
2007-03-03 06:30:36 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Someone has to take the global warming problem on. The government has always stepped in to make laws for the good of man. Would you like to be driving down the highway at a reasonable speed only to have someone exercizing their civil liberty by driving 120 mph?
What is wrong with leaving this planet a better place? I'm 66 years old and could take the attitude that I'll leave the problem to someone else and live as I wish.
Useing compact flourscent bulbs saves energy at the power plant, plus it saves you money in a lower electric bill. The same goes for toilets that use less water.
2007-03-03 15:03:42 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't consider someone advising me about what kind of light bulb to use to be an attack on my civil liberties. Since when is my light bulb use a right? Or a liberty? I don't recall the words "light bulb" being in the constitution, or any other piece of human-right legislation.
Why does our government screen any consumer product for safety or efficiency? Why doesn't the government let me use a poorly made, fire-inducing light bulb that bursts when it gets too hot? Shouldn't I be able to use that light bulb if I want? Who cares if it lights my house on fire after exploding and embedding red-hot glass shards in my eye? It's my right to be glass riddled and burned if I want!!!
Instituting the use of eco-safe light bulbs does not cause anyone any harm what-so-ever, while tapping a "terrorist"'s phone, coupled with the fact that our government has a distinctly questionable means of justifying who's a terrorist, is an invasion of privacy. Phone tapping has been challenged under the 4th amendment (right not to be searched without a warrant/probable cause), and in my opinion, rightly so!
2007-03-03 15:26:33 · answer #3 · answered by maguire1202 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I take it you're one of those people who would prefer to bring back lead in house paint and gasoline, asbestos in buildings and CFCs in aerosols and refrigerants!
Did it ever occur to you that sometimes legislation is meant to protect your health, as well as the nation's/world's?!
Did it ever occur to you that using energy-saving lightbulbs will not only help to prevent brown-outs and black-outs during times of high energy demand, but also save YOU money on YOUR electricity bills?
And that if the government tapped your telephone calls and monitored your bank account even if you hadn't done anything wrong, that you'd rightfully be pretty upset about it? I knew a guy whose name was the same as a gangster's. He wasn't the gangster. His private telephone calls were listened into by the FBI for years before they realized their mistake.
2007-03-03 14:51:21 · answer #4 · answered by lesroys 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not sure, seeing as I don't really have a problem with either situation.
Regardless of how you feel about the "global warming" thing, Americans truly do overconsume our natural resources. If society will not take responsibility for using resources in a wise manner, government has no choice but to step in and do it for them.
Maybe your question should be more along the lines of why can't Americans act more responsibly in the consumption of utilities and natural resources? Figure that one out and someone named "Nobel" will have something for ya.
2007-03-03 14:32:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm.... lessee .... you can buy energy efficient lightbulbs for a few pennies more and save the world.
Oh! Got it! No more world, no more need for lightbulbs! Kewl!
Tapping my phone while I talk to my friends about needing to buy energy-efficient lightbults. So they know if I bought GE or Phillips or if I secretly prefer women in french cut panties over jockeys; ummm...
Oh! I got it! They also know who I voted for, who I am going to vote for, who agrees or disagrees with me, if I ever called the president a name ....
Yuh, you do have a point. But -
- I bet if you comb your hair right and wear a hat, no one will notice!
2007-03-03 14:41:04 · answer #6 · answered by View from a horse 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're comparing invasion of privacy to a lightbulb?? I'm speechless...
2007-03-03 14:31:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because they fantasize about BEING the ones in power, telling the rest of us how to live.
2007-03-03 14:45:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋